Government – Tenth Amendment Centerhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com
Concordia res Parvae CrescuntThu, 17 Aug 2017 17:25:05 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.852735376A Strategy to Preserve Liberty: Serve on a Juryhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/20/a-strategy-to-preserve-liberty-serve-on-a-jury/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/20/a-strategy-to-preserve-liberty-serve-on-a-jury/#commentsWed, 20 Aug 2014 08:06:31 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=23927I have often heard friends and acquaintances complain when they are called to jury duty. It is easy to understand the common gripes made in response to this mandate. As a result of the obligation, people are often displaced from their jobs and other pursuits, often for long hours and for little compensation.

I find it hard not to empathize with their qualms. After all, it is easy to find disfavor with required government service of any kind. However, serving on a jury remains one of the most effectual ways to preserve someone’s liberty.

What if a jury in a case felt that a defendant was being charged under bizarre or unreasonable circumstances? What if that jury understood that the individual charged acted in good faith, and did not violate anyone else’s health or well-being? What if the state built a perfect case to convict under current law, but the jury decided the law was just plain outlandish or unnecessary? Based on this reasoning, what if the jury used common sense and decided to acquit?

For decades, juries not only practiced this technique to thwart repulsive government law, but many states required their courts to instruct its juries on this power.

At the time of the founding, jury nullification was a widely recognized principle. Even those who favored a relatively high degree of governmental power affirmed its legitimacy.

In the 1794 case of Georgia vs. Brailsford, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Jay instructed the jury:

“But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.”[1]

Jay made it clear: juries have the power not only to decide if the state has proven its case to convict a defendant, but also the power to determine the legitimacy of the law in question and whether it should even apply to the case before them.

Jay was not an outlier when it came to this principle. In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia (1782), the same principle was clarified:

“It is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.”[2]

Prior to the Civil War, northern juries regularly refused to convict individuals for violations of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. Juries stood up against the tendency for runaway slaves and those who assisted them to be held liable to the punishments handed down by the government. In one case, a large crowd broke into a Boston courtroom and rescued a runaway slave. When the government indicted three of those involved, an acquittal and a series of hung juries forced the government to drop the charges.[3]

Clearly, the people on these juries understood liberty and their civic duty to protect those who would be held captive by an oppressive and unjust federal government.

Even by 1969, the United States Supreme Court conceded the independent power of juries in considering the law in question at the time of a trial:

“We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”[4]

If a state passes laws at odds with the tenets of liberty, a jury is often the last shield of defense against the government. A state can build a perfect case, but a jury that finds the law’s aims deplorable can respond accordingly by acquitting those charged. Juries are a check on the arbitrary power of the courts because they are composed of citizens not belonging to the government. While a state can wield immense power, an educated jury can dismantle it.

This type of protection can be used to disrupt any policy the state chooses to prosecute, including a continuance of the drug war, charges made after egregious privacy violations, or laws that authorize unconstitutional power. It is a way to impede the state even it has succeeded in the passage of oppressive law.

Today, most people that find themselves on juries have never heard of this practice, for good reason. Most educational curriculum never mentions the topic, and many law schools do not even approach the subject, and most courts no longer instruct its juries of its potential or legitimacy. It is rare to find people who have even heard of the concept, let alone those that understand its importance in a free society.

At the same time, judges have gradually accepted more power and authority over juries. This has been accomplished through how they instruct the juries, how sentencing discretion is utilized, and how defense counsels are treated. It is not shocking that this idea has fallen out of favor in the modern world, where the power of courts has grown far beyond its original design.

The best advice to give a friend that learns of his upcoming jury duty is this: don’t convict unless someone else is hurt or afflicted. Giving the state a rubber-stamp conviction for its dreadful policy makes one complicit with its objectives. Jurors should stand up for what is right, and teach other jurors to understand this concept when called to do so. Practicing jury nullification is a retroactive way to hinder abominable law from affecting someone’s life. To preserve liberty, these techniques can be used in a way that is even more powerful than donating to political causes, reaching out to legislators, or voting.

References

[1] The Albany Law Journal: A Weekly Record of the Law and the Lawyers, Volume VIII, Edited by Isaac Grant Thompson (Albany: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1874), 203.

[2] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (London: Burlington-House, 1787), 214.

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.
– Gandhi

I’m conflicted.

More than anything, I simply want to live free. When others build walls against freedom, we must tear them down. But how do we go about doing that? How do we stop those that would lay chains over our wrists and ankles?

Some advocate violence. I’ve seen the calls for “revolution” and armed resistance grow in some circles in the wake of the Bundy Ranch situation. I’ll be honest, watching video of federal agents pulling back made my heart smile. Sometimes we must meet force with force. I can somewhat sympathize with those who think nothing will ever change without armed resistance.

But ultimately, I believe Gandhi was right. We will only find true freedom through non-violent means. Victory won at the barrel of a gun will prove short-lived. If we cannot find a way to change the system without resorting to violent means, we will merely rearrange the pieces on the game board. The rule of force and coercion will remain. Violence begets violence.

When you use violence to change the system, you are not really changing the system. Violence is the primary component of the system.

We need a new rulebook.

The non-aggression principle serves as the cornerstone of my political philosophy. I have two overriding goals for society: freedom and peace. I just can’t fathom that the best way to bring that about includes coercion and war.

I’m not arguing that we don’t stand our ground. I’m not arguing that we should embrace weakness. I am arguing that we should endeavor to stand our ground without resorting to violence if at all possible. Let our force come from our numbers, our passion and our higher principles. Overwhelm evil with good…not more evil.

As Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Let’s be honest: peaceful resistance is harder. Rage is easier than forgiveness. Brute physical force is easier than force of will. Hatred is easier than love. But if our end is a better society, don’t we need to get there through a better means?

As I said, I find myself conflicted. I know situations exist that would lead me to respond with force. But the apparent eagerness of some to provoke violent conflict alarms me. I believe we should take on a nonviolent posture as long as that option exists.

Gandhi expressed the tension I feel perfectly in “The Doctrine of the Sword.”

I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish, it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her. … I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India’s and my strength for better purpose. Let me not be misunderstood.

Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/18/the-tougher-path-to-freedom-non-violence/feed/1823668The Shutdown and the Rollouthttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/25/the-shutdown-and-the-rollout/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/25/the-shutdown-and-the-rollout/#commentsMon, 25 Nov 2013 13:59:41 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=23299Here is a quick pop quiz. Which presented more harm to human life and personal freedom: the four-week partial shutdown of the federal government last month or the rollout of Obamacare this month?

Obamacare is the greatest single expansion of federal regulatory authority in American history. In one stroke, it puts 16 percent of American economic activity — virtually all of health care and health insurance — under the thumb of federal bureaucrats. It dictates the minimum insurance coverage that everyone in the United States must have.

It punishes severely, without a hearing, anyone who deviates below the prescribed minimum. It forces nearly all Americans to acquire coverage in a one-size-fits-all policy, including coverage for events that cannot occur.

Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress with support from Democrats only, using parliamentary tricks, rather than straight up or down votes. And all the Democrats voted for it after President Obama promised them and the American people ad nauseam that if they like their current doctor and if they like their current health insurance, they would be able to keep them under Obamacare.

The law was found constitutional by the Supreme Court only after the chief justice — who acknowledged in his opinion in the case that Congress lacks the authority to compel people to engage in interstate commerce by forcing them to purchase a good they don’t want — changed his mind on the ultimate outcome of the challenge. In order to save the law from imminent constitutional extinction, he created a novel legal theory, and he persuaded the four progressives on the court to join him.

They ruled that the punishment for the failure to obtain the level of health care coverage that the law requires is actually a tax. Then the court ruled that because Congress can constitutionally tax any event, it can tax nonevents (like the failure to purchase health insurance), and so the entire scheme is constitutional because it is really just a tax law.

The Supreme Court, lawyers sometimes say, is infallible because it is final; it is not final because it is infallible. I am a student of the court, and I revere it. It can change the laws of the land, but it can’t change the laws of economics. And so, when Obamacare ordered all insurance carriers in the land to cease offering health care plans that provide insurance coverage below the federally mandated minimum, they naturally began to cancel those plans. And when the new health care exchanges that Obamacare established failed to find coverage for those formerly insured by the substandard plans, those who had these plans and liked them suddenly were told that on Jan. 1, 2014, when Obamacare becomes effective, they will have no health insurance. The old insurance coverage will be illegal, and there is no new coverage for them.

Why were these substandard plans canceled when the president repeatedly promised that they could be kept? Didn’t the president know that he was not being truthful when he signed a bill into law that mandated minimum coverage, yet promised that plans that failed to meet that minimum coverage could survive the law? How is it that emails from the West Wing to the White House and legal briefs filed by the Department of Justice defending Obamacare in various federal courts acknowledged that millions would lose the doctors and the coverage that they liked?

One of the reasons many Americans had their policies canceled this month is the failure of those policies to conform to the new federal minimum requirements.

At the heart and soul of Obamacare is the power of bureaucrats to tell everyone what coverage to have. At the core of Obamacare is the removal of individual choice from the decision to purchase health care coverage. The goal of Obamacare is high-end coverage for everyone — brought about by Soviet-style central planning, not in response to free market forces.

From the perspective of the central planners who concocted Obamacare, minimum insurance coverage is the sine qua non of the statute. They want you to pay for coverage you will not need or ever use, so that the insurance carriers will have extra cash on hand to fund coverage for those who cannot afford high-end policies. This is where the laws of economics enter. By forcing all carriers to offer only high-end policies, the statute forced the carriers to raise their rates. By raising rates, the substandard policies — with their lower rates — could no longer be offered. If the government forced everyone to buy a Mercedes, when most are perfectly happy with an Acura, soon the Acuras would disappear from the market and most of us would be walking to work.

Now back to our pop quiz. When Congress was unable to agree on a budget for this present fiscal year because tea party Republicans saw this mess coming and wanted to dull its sting and congressional Democrats refused to negotiate with them, the federal government partially shut down. The Democrats and the mainstream media went wild. They claimed the government would default on its obligations and millions would suffer without the conveniences normally offered by the federal government. Yet, the only inconvenience we really heard about was the inability of a few hundred folks to visit federal parks and monuments. All federal services — defense, the courts, the airports, the TSA (ugh), customs, and meat inspectors — continued to operate as before the shutdown.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Yet, when Obamacare was rolled out earlier this month, more than 5,500,000 innocent Americans lost their health insurance, and the president knew of this in advance and lied about it repeatedly, and caused it with the one-size-fits-all mentality of his signature piece of legislation. Last week he caved and said that folks who have the old substandard policies could keep them for another year. This was too little and too late. He can no more change federal law than he can change the laws of economics. And he knows that.

In modern times, we have endured great lies told in the White House. One great lie was about a third-rate burglary, and it ended in a presidential resignation. Another great lie was about a private sexual affair, and it ended in a presidential impeachment. The present great lies are about the health and freedom of 5,500,000 Americans. How will this mess end?

One expects some exaggeration from a political columnist, but one expects at least a minimal level of accuracy if the columnist is a Nobel Laureate, even if he writes for the New York Times.

The problem is that during his ideological rants Paul Krugman has been failing to reach the necessary minimum.

Krugman, you may recall, was the guy who, without a scintilla of evidence, smeared the Tea Party by claiming that its members were probably responsible for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Krugman is also one of the ideological diehards who are convinced that the reason massive federal deficits haven’t cured our economic woes is that we are not spending enough! (The deficit is already 42% of the budget; how large does it have to be?)

Krugman’s latest venture into the absurd is a column in which he concludes that it would be good for the congressional budgetary “supercommittee” to fail to reach an accord because doing so would result in spending cuts.He seems completely to have forgotten that the fact that under the law creating the supercommittee, it is failure to reach agreement that triggers automatic, sweeping, across-the-board spending cuts!

Along the way toward that conclusion, Krugman makes a number of assertions about Republicans that suggest that, like our President, he has spent his life isolated from them.

Consider his claim that while Democrats think “social insurance programs. . . serv[e] a moral imperative, Republicans have a totally different view. . . they view the welfare state as immoral.”

You have to wonder how many Republicans Krugman really knows; with brief exceptions, he seems to have been spent his life almost exclusively among the New York/New England liberal intelligensia. Of course, the party that favors eliminating all social programs is the tiny Libertarian Party, not the GOP. Nearly all Republicans favor some sort of government social safety net, although many of them recognize that under our constitutional system the states, not the federal government, are the ones primarily charged with that responsibility.

Krugman also claims that Republicans think the “way to increase revenue is to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy.”

Tha’s a caricature, of course. It’s silly to generalize that way about all Republicans, many of whom have supported tax increases as a way to raise revenue. (George H.W. Bush comes to mind.)

More importantly, Krugman’s statement misunderstands those of us who presently oppose tax hikes. Our actual position is that hiking taxes raises revenue only up to a certain point, and that beyond that point higher tax rates discourage productivity so that revenues fall. Hence, in considering tax hikes we should ask whether rates already are so high that further increases would be counterproductive.

There are other questions, too. Among them are:

*Even if raising a tax would produce more revenue, would the additional revenue be worth any resulting economic distortions?

*Even if raising the tax would produce more revenue, what are the moral implications of taking more money from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not? (When government at all levels is already taking, directly or by regulation, half what people earn, that moral issue becomes particularly compelling.)

*And would showering more money on inefficient or harmful programs delay needed reform? Or, put another way, would it be better for society to terminate or downsize some programs rather than increase their funding?

Finally, Krugman takes Republicans to task for believing that “slashing government spending is a job creation strategy.” But on this point the Republicans are clearly right and Krugman is clearly wrong.

Government is like water: You need it to stay alive, but too much of it can drown you.

Get the 2nd Edition Today!

Government is necessary because certain necessary functions can be performed no other way. But it is, on average, notoriously less efficient than the private sector. (Having spent many years in both government and the private sector, I can certainly testify to this.) Not surprisingly, therefore, a growing body of research shows that the more government grows beyond the necessary minimum, the more it throttles economic progress. (For an example, click here.) It is no accident that the U.S. economy slowed to nearly European stagnancy after the aggregate size of U.S. federal, state and local government rose to nearly European levels.

That’s why “slashing government spending” from excessive current levels (over 40% of GDP) would indeed be an effective job creation strategy. After all, we’ve already tried it the other way.

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution(Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

The political upheaval in the Middle East underscores one of the most profound aspects of Ludwig von Mises’s worldview: all governments ultimately rely on the consent of the governed.

Although the claim at first sounds preposterous â€” who could possibly argue that a dictatorship is subject to the will of the people? â€” there is an important sense in which it is true. Mises’s insight has ramifications for choosing methods in the struggle for liberty, and it shows the critical importance of educating the masses in sound doctrines.

A durable system of government must rest upon an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The “real” factor, the “real forces” that are the foundation of government and convey to the rulers the power to use violence against renitent minority groups are essentially ideological, moral, and spiritual. Rulers who failed to recognize this first principle of government and, relying upon the alleged irresistibility of their armed troops, disdained the spirit and ideas have finally been overthrown by the assault of their adversaries. The interpretation of might as a “real” factor not dependent upon ideologies, quite common to many political and historical books, is erroneous. â€¦

He who interprets might as physical or “real” power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. â€¦

However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only “real” elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force.

With this foundation, Mises laterÂ in the book draws a connection between governments and the approval of the masses:

[Classical] liberalism realizes that the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it.

Even Dictators Rest on Ideology

Many people scoff when they first hear Mises’s claims. Surely there is a sense in which a dictator, who violently suppresses all opposition, rules through force and not consent?

Yet the actual behavior of dictators proves the deep truth in Mises’s analysis. For example, the very mark of a closed, totalitarian society is that the media are all controlled by the government. Even graffiti challenging the regime is very quickly removed, far more quickly than authorities would clean up something comparable in a relatively open society. The schools serve as indoctrination camps, teaching the next generation about the virtues of the regime. Finally, the supreme ruler might spend hours every week giving long-winded speeches,Â not explaining how many guns and secret police agents are at his disposal, but on the contrary explaining how fortunate the people are to be taken care of by such a wise and benevolent leader.

These tell-tale signs of a dictatorship all reinforce Mises’s observation: the regime can only last if it maintains the illusion that it is beneficial to the masses. Mere physical strength is not sufficient, because it is ultimately ideas that determine which way the soldiers and police point their guns.

We can interpret events in the Middle East through this prism. To understand why Mubarak was toppled relatively easily, in contrast to the bloodshed in Libya, we need to push the analysis deeper and ask why MubarakÂ lost the support of the army, whereas Gaddafi maintained loyalty on the part of a sizable number of subordinates who were willing to kill and be killed on his behalf.

As Mises explained, such an analysis of “power politics” doesn’t primarily concern military statistics on troop strength. Instead, the analysis would focus on the prevailing ideologies animating both the armed forces and the general public who were rising up against the regime.

Lessons for Liberty

Looking through a Misesian lens, there are two important lessons we can draw from the turmoil in the Middle East. First, we see that it isÂ possible to topple a hated regime without resorting to a civil war. Although American commentators are bickering over just how peaceful the Egyptian mobs were, it is undeniable that few people, even six months ago, would have predicted that Mubarak’s implosion would occur so spontaneously and with such little loss of life.

The second lesson is the importance of having aÂ sound ideology, so that the masses have a shared vision of how a free society works and what is needed to maintain it. Everyone the world over longs for freedom, and no one enjoys living under a brutal dictatorship. But if Egyptians believe that the historical success of the United States came from its periodic elections â€” as opposed to its relative respect for the institution of private property â€” then they are in for a rude awakening.

Yet to put something durable and superior in the old regime’s place, the common man must also know more than mere slogans like “liberty” and “democracy.” It’s not necessary that the majority become formally trained in political science and economics, but it is necessary that “conventional wisdom” is indeed wise on such matters. Unfortunately, too many “freedom fighters” around the world seem to think the problem with oppressive governments is theÂ specific personalitiesat the top, as opposed to the institutions themselves.

Conclusion

Educational institutions such as theÂ Mises Institute (including theÂ online Mises Academy) have always been in the business of educating for liberty, and with the Internet their outreach is truly global. If the human striving for freedom is ever to be realized, a necessary first step will be promoting a sound ideology.

Late one evening, a DEA agent shows up on at the doorstep of a farmhouse in south central Kentucky. He pounds on the door impatiently, waits about 15 seconds and pounds again. Growing more agitated, he shakes the screen door, turns in a circle and then gives the door a couple more good, hard raps.

Finally, a grizzled old farmer opens the door and peers into twilight.

â€œSorry to keep ya waitin’. Was just fixin’ to eat some supper. How kin I hep, ya?â€

The agent stands tall and straight andÂ in hisÂ most official voice declares, â€œI’m Agent Murdoch, DEA. I’m here to inspect your fields to make sure there are no illegal drugs growing on this property,â€ He pauses a moment with an air of gravity.Â â€œI’m not asking permission. Just letting you know.â€

The old farmer steps out onto the porch as the rickety screen door clatters closed behind him. He hitches up his coveralls and peers quizzically at the agent, absentmindedly brushing a fly away from his forehead.

â€œI reckon that’ll be jist fine,â€ he says. â€œBut I’ll just warn ya – ya don’t want to go into the west field over yonder,â€ he said, pointing to an old rusty gate silhouetted in the setting sun.

The agent bristles, reaches into his suit coat pocket and whips out a badge.

â€œYou see this old-timer? It says DEA. That means I can go anyplace I damn well please. AndÂ I can do anything I damn well please. I have the authority. Do you understand me?â€

The old farmer, simply shrugs and cocks one busy, old eyebrow.

â€œSuit yeer-self, son.â€

The agent quickly strides across a dusty driveway and makes his way through the creaky gate, headingÂ into the west field. The farmer follows and leans nonchalantly against a fence post next to the gate, gnawing on a toothpick.

The fed makes it about half way across the field when Roscoe, a massive red bull, suddenly charges out of a treeline near the back of the field. The agent, screams in horror and turns, hightailing it toward the gate. But it quickly becomes clear he’ll never make it. The 2,000 pound animal quickly closes the gap between itself and the agent.

Moments before a certain goring, the farmer cups his hands around his mouth and yells, â€œShow him yer badge! Show him yer badge!â€

***
I respect authority.

But when an individual or institution takes its authority beyond prescribed limits, it’s clear in my mind that we have the right to resist.

Most people in the United States seem to hold the federal government in awe. It goes beyond respect into what I would call an unwarranted reverence. Yes, we should respect legitimate authority. But when the feds exercise power not granted by the Constitution, citizens have a right and duty to stand against it. We’re not talking rebellion against legitimate authority. We are talking about standing firm against unwarranted, unconstitutional and illegal acts.

And we can stand against it – through our state governments.

James Madison understood the power of the states and the people, and he envisioned it a check on overreaching federal power. When the states band together and stand against unconstitutional overreach, they become a rampaging bull. And no federal badge can stop it.

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. – James Madison, Federalist 46

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/12/a-raging-bull/feed/37965Society is a Blessing, Government an Evilhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/01/09/society-is-a-blessing-government-an-evil/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/01/09/society-is-a-blessing-government-an-evil/#commentsSun, 09 Jan 2011 08:25:08 +0000http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=7674EDITOR’S NOTE: On January 10th, 1776 Thomas Paine published â€œthe most popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary eraâ€, Common Sense. In this short pamphlet Paine outlined what would become the cornerstone and supreme argument for individual rights and liberties.

Paine’s writings and philosophies still hold true today, but they are under attack.

On January 10-11, 2011, in commemoration of his historic work, we defend the philosophy held within his writings by holding a mass donation day in support of another revolutionary effort for the cause of liberty, The Tenth Amendment Center.

*******Of the Origin and Design of Governmentby Thomas Paine, Excerpted from Common Sense

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.

But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue encreasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, ’tis right.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.

Absolute governments, (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.

First. â€” The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King.

Secondly. â€” The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.

Thirdly. â€” The new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the People; wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.

To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

First. â€” That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly. â€” That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

Some writers have explained the English constitution thus: the King, say they, is one, the people another; the Peers are a house in behalf of the King, the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind: for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist.

But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a Felo de se: for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern: and tho’ the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual: The first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.

That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key.

The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government, by King, Lords and Commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries: but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle â€” not more just.

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.

An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form of government, is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

As Iâ€™ve grown older, learned more, and experience takes a toll on my philosophy, I have come to trust government less and less. Iâ€™m distrustful of all government, but particularly, Iâ€™m distrustful of the federal government of the United States because it is the most difficult to control. The government of the United States has become the distant, detached, self-important entity that the founders had hoped to avoid when writing the Constitution. Today, the government is a being in and of itself â€“ in national security planning, steps are taken to ensure that the government is preserved. Elected officials and unelected bureaucrats take the position that itâ€™s their job to do what they think is in Americaâ€™s best interest whether the American people agree or not.

It is this type of behavior on the part of government that has led us into fighting two wars simultaneously that drain our national resources. It was this philosophy of governance that created the financial environment that led to our current economic crisis. In the current administration, nothing has changed, really. The political goals may be different, but the underlying philosophy of government remains â€“ a philosophy that holds that government can ignore the electorate and disregard the Constitution if they feel doing so is â€œin the best interest of America.â€

I couldnâ€™t disagree more.

It was this recognition, that government is not really what it pretends to be, that led me to self-identify as a libertarian, which eventually led to my involvement with the Tenth Amendment Center. And it is this same realization that causes me to applaud WikiLeaks and the sunshine it has brought to American government.

I grew up Christian with a very specific moral code which had very specific standards of behavior. Of course, being human and a child, I didnâ€™t feel the need to always obey our standards of behavior. Sometimes, (okay, a lot of times), what I wanted to do didnâ€™t align with what I was supposed to do. So my parents and religious leaders told me a story about how I was always being watched by God and I had a guardian angel following me around with a book. And in that book, my angel wrote down all the bad things and good things that I did, and it was up to me to make sure that there were more good things in that book than bad, because one day I would be judged and the contents of that book, my lifeâ€™s record, would be laid bare for all to see.

The government of the United States was instituted by men who held government to a certain standard of behavior. It was their belief that government should be instituted to protect the liberty of individuals, but it was also their realization that all governments are a monopoly of force and will tend to disregard liberty in pursuit of their own ends. Sometimes, (okay, a lot of times), what government wants to do isnâ€™t what government is supposed to do. Realizing this, our founders protected the freedoms of speech and press believing that an interested, knowledgeable populous would follow the goings-on in government, writing it all down with the intention that governmentâ€™s record would be laid bare for all to see, and judge.

Sometimes, the mainstream press does its job well calling government to account for its misdeeds, misleads, or outright lies. Other times, the press itself seems to be fooled by, or in collusion with, a government that just does what it wants. This is why movements like the Tenth Amendment Center rise up and become successful â€“ because there will always be a group of people who see the inherent evil in centralized government and do all they can to keep it in check. And because I am one of those people, a Tenther, a Constitutionalist, and a lover of liberty, I cannot help but support the mission of WikiLeaks, which, according to their website is to foster and promote the freedom of information in an effort to keep governments open and transparent.

On the page dedicated to WikiLeaksâ€™ most recent document dump of American diplomatic cables, I find this quote:

This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’ public persona and what it says behind closed doors, and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see whatâ€™s going on behind the scenes.

My sentiments exactly.

Iâ€™ve realized for some time now that the public persona of the United States is nothing like the closed door policy discussions. Our government talks openly of freedom, democracy and republican principles, but in reality, the United States is the largest sponsor of totalitarian regimes in the world. Our politicians pay homage to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but ignore them when they pass legislation designed to infringe on the principles and protected rights in those documents. That there are others out there, like WikiLeaks, who see the same thing as me, keeps hope alive.

WikiLeaks can be a powerful tool for the Tenth Amendment movement. It gives us undeniable sources showing the hypocrisy of our federal government and provides impetus for local activism designed to rein in a federal leviathan thatâ€™s out of control. We, along with WikiLeaks and other pro-transparency movements, can be the federal governmentâ€™s guardian angel â€“ God knows it needs one â€“ because it just keeps on doing whatever it wants.

Roger Prather [send him email] is the Communications Coordinator for the Massachusetts Tenth Amendment Center.

Most Americans will read my opening statement with raised eyebrows. Some will immediately dismiss it with a shrug, figuring the author some kind of nutcase. Others will simply shake their head in disbelief, or perhaps blow it offÂ with an eye-roll.

In fact, most Americans view Washington D.C. as the font of all power. The final arbiter. The last word.

But the attitude held by the majority of Americans toward the federal government rests upon a gross misunderstanding of the nature of political power.

In truth, the federal government possess no power. At least none that it wasn’t granted by you and me.

You see, we the people ultimately possess all authority.

It was on that principle that our founding fathers rebelled against the rule of the British Crown, and it was upon that foundation that the United States was built.

Fundamental to the thinking of our founders was the idea that all human beings exist as autonomous moral agents. The Creator endows each of us with a free will, and He never forces his will upon humankind. Thus, no human being has the right to force her or his will on another person.

The writings of John Locke, an English philosopher and theologian, greatly influenced the founding generation. He explained it this way.

To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst the other without subordination or subjection; unless the Lord and Master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

But in order to live together and prosper, people must cooperate. Human beings possess an innate desire to seek out the fellowship of others. This drives us to group together in political societies. It follows that some form of government becomes necessary, and that requires individuals submit to authority and create a mechanism to protect life, property and individual liberty.

Consent is the key to understanding the scope of governmental power. Each individual in a political society consents, of his own free will, to be governed. Citizens remove themselves from the state of nature (perfect freedom) and willingly submit to the authority of government.

Thomas Jefferson summed up these ideas in two sentences of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

The Constitution of the United States is simply a legal document granting limited, enumerated power to a federal government. But ultimately, the power rests with the people. Without the grant, the government has no power. In fact, it ceases to exist. We willingly cede a small bit of our perfect liberty to a general government â€“ in much the same way one person grants another the legal authority to handle their affairs through a power of attorney.

The wording of the preamble makes this clear. Constitutional scholar Robert Natelson points out that the framers followed a common practice in royal charters, identifying the grantor using large majestic letters.

We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And power we the people grant, we the people can take away. The Declaration of Independence continues:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Get the New Book Today!

Too many Americans place government in the ultimate place of authority, assuming it decides what we may or may not do. Too many Americans treat government as an almost omnipotent entity. Too many Americans turn and face Washington D.C. with awed reverence.

The veneration is misplaced.

In truth, we â€“ the American people – reserve the bulk of power to ourselves.

The federal governmentÂ Â was intended to exist and operate bound by the Constitution, a grant of limited authority, constraining federal power to specific spheres, limiting it to specific functions, and defining its scope and role.

And as the grantor of all power and authority, we the people must insist that the federal government stay within its properly defined powers and role.

I have many fond memories of time spent with my grandfather. Some of the earliest are of me watching him watch professional wrestling. My grandfatherâ€™s one vice was professional wrestling, and boy did he get into it. He would laugh and slap his knee when the bad guys got slapped around by the good guys. He expressed suspicious optimism when a villain switched sides, and â€œknew it all alongâ€ when a good guy made an alliance with the bad. Today, I can only laugh at professional wrestling: choreographed combat, outrageous speeches, and staged news conferences. Itâ€™s really a brilliant form of entertainment, playing on the emotions of fans by exploiting their desire to identify with someone they see as good, while opposing someone they view as bad. In the ring, heroes and villains pretend (convincingly) to dislike one another and everything theyâ€™re about, but in reality, after the match is over, theyâ€™re slapping each other on the back and sharing a beer. But in public, significant effort is exerted in preserving the illusion â€“ good guys share a locker room apart from the bad guys, but ride to the arena on the same tour bus.

Observing our two party system in the United States, it strikes me that itâ€™s much like professional wrestling â€“ choreographed combat. Most political observers can quickly identify the fringe members of each party, those who could potentially go either way â€“ the players who, with the safety of reelection passed, switch parties to an outcry of â€œI knew it all along!â€ And what about the bipartisan alliances, when we hope our good guy is positively influencing the bad guy, but fear the consequences of the alliance. And when our party of choice soundly defeats the opposition, we hoot and holler, confident that, finally, our guys get the spotlight for a while. And certainly we know that itâ€™s only for a while, because itâ€™s all really just a choreographed show, exploiting our desire to identify with something. And at the end of it all, theyâ€™re sharing the same tour bus.

I recently re-read some of the writings of John Stuart Mill. In his Chapters on Socialism, published in 1879, he discussed the emerging philosophies of socialism and communism, reporting, rather than editorializing, about the debate between competing political ideologies. As I read Chapters, I felt as though I was listening to a modern day discussion that still rages on between American liberals and conservatives. Owners v. Workers. Capital v. Labor. Have v. Have-not. As I thought about what I was reading, it struck me that this debate has been going on for over 100 years, but with plenty of evidence on either side. Through the Twentieth Century, free(er) markets have outperformed and outlasted centrally planned socialist economies. From the complete failures of Soviet and Chinese systems, to the emerging failures in Western Europe, it seems clear that a centrally planned economy based on the absolute redistribution of wealth will fail. And, to the extent that a mixed economy like those of Germany, France, Greece, and Great Britain is able to fumble along for some time, the buck must stop somewhere, usually on a steep cliff overlooking complete economic and political collapse.

Even in the United States, a mixed economy for sure, but still the freest market in the world, weâ€™re faced with serious consequences resulting from our own attempts at central planning and wealth redistribution. So why are we still having this debate? Why does the middle class, the largest piece of the electorate, vacillate between conservatism and liberalism? The answer lies, perhaps, in our professional wrestling analogy.

Political and economic writers throughout history have recognized that any government, once in power, will tend to grow in power and authority until it is replaced or placed in check. Human nature, as recognized by Thomas Hobbes, tends to seek power, authority, and recognition. Once gained, power will increase through the ambition and self-interest of those in power. This realization is why the Revolutionary generation founded the United States (and every member state) with a written constitution â€“ with hope (rather than true belief) that a written constitution could better limit the inevitable tendency in government to increase its own power and control. This constitution was written with the Lockean philosophy that the only legitimate function of government was to protect individual liberty from encroachment. Unfortunately for Lockeâ€™s ideal, government itself, as a human institution, will also be driven by ambition and self-interest leading it to itself encroach upon the very liberty it was designed to protect.

In the United States today, few have experienced life in a tyrannical, totalitarian, or violently anarchical state. For over two hundred years we have held peaceful elections, enjoyed relative economic stability and growth, and sat as the most influential military and economic power in the world. Under such conditions, it is difficult (impossible for some) to even imagine how liberty could die in America. But it can die, and with each passing decade through the Twentieth Century until today, the federal government has grown in size, scope and power with a corresponding decrease in the real and potential liberty of American citizens. Those who disagree with this assertion, believing that the size of government bears no relation to liberty, are simply wrong, for every power that government can exercise over an individual is consequently a power that the individual cannot exercise over himself. And the power to govern oneself is liberty.

That government, as an institution, acts self-interestedly by increasing in power, size, and influence presents a more accurate view of the class warfare discussed in Millâ€™s Chapters on Socialism. Our debates in politics often revolve around convincing the middle class electorate of who their enemies in society are. Democrats would have the middle and lower classes believe that their enemy is the capitalist and the wealthy who build their wealth and power through the labor and ingenuity of the middle class â€“ thus, socialist and liberal policy promises to level the playing field and make sure that everyone gets whatâ€™s due to them through egalitarianism and wealth redistribution. Republicans would have the upper and middle classes believe that their enemy is the poor who take advantage of socialist, liberal, and Democrat policies that favor wealth redistribution and unfairly tax the labor and ingenuity of the middle class. While thereâ€™s a kernel of truth in the argument of each side, the reality is that these arenâ€™t two polar opposites vying for votes â€“ itâ€™s more along the line of choreographed political theater that plays on the emotions of American voters.

A more accurate view of class warfare is to see American society in two segments: a governing class and everyone else. The governing class consists not just of politicians, but a massive federal bureaucracy that in self-interest seeks to grow in size, power, and influence. Regardless of individual political affiliations, the people who make up the government class, out of their own self interest, will stop at nothing to maintain the existence from which they derive income, lifestyle, and influence. Democrats present voters with a shadowy bogeyman portrayed as the insidious rich man who gets richer off the back of the middle class while Republicans present their own bogeyman in the person of the welfare recipient and his socialist paymaster who taxes the working to pay the lazy. In actuality itâ€™s more like the heroes and villains of professional wrestling, who play their part in the big show put on for those watching. For the wrestlers, itâ€™s to hide the fact that theyâ€™re all just paid actors who follow the script. For the government, itâ€™s to control the debate and keep voters fighting about symptoms rather than focusing on the real problem â€“ that there is a government class, producing nothing of social or economic value, that subsists on the taxes taken from the upper, middle, and lower classes, that can contribute social and economic value.

Get the New Book Today!

By controlling the debate, this government class keeps voters focused on the results of bad government instead of the cause of bad government. In the midterm election, Republicans convinced voters that they were the new good guys â€“ the Democrats had their chance. Two years into a Democrat administration was long enough to know that they couldnâ€™t solve the ills of society. Strangely, voters apparently forgot that Republicans were bad guys just two years ago when Barack Obama convinced them that hope, belief, and warm, fuzzy feelings could change America for the better. So, we replaced the Republican that believed government could solve all problems with the Democrat who believes government can solve all problems.

In professional wrestling, if the good guys won all the time, nobody would stay interested. When the bad guys get a little bit ahead, it creates dramatic suspense by anticipating the good-guy comeback that everyone knows is coming. Regardless of how one views Republicans and Democrats, as either good or bad, when the other party wins, the suspense in anticipation of revenge keeps the audience interested, and distracted.

Government is the problem. Actually, the problem is that nobody realizes that government is the problem because theyâ€™re too focused on the problems created by government.

Voting for candidates from the two major parties will never solve the problem. As members of the governing class, they will only act in their own self-interest, which is to preserve the government class by convincing voters that somehow government can clean up the problems of government. But government canâ€™t solve the problems created by government, because I canâ€™t recall one government that ever voted itself out of existence.

Roger Prather [send him email] is the Communications Coordinator for the Massachusetts Tenth Amendment Center